Bitcoin Forum
November 24, 2017, 06:11:49 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Open Letter to GMaxwell and Sincere Rational Core Devs  (Read 33324 times)
AgentofCoin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092



View Profile
March 05, 2017, 04:47:57 AM
 #341

...
Are you arguing my argument, or are you also disagreeing with Nash, just to be clear?

Do you accept my argument that Nash says that central bankers and central banking theory will be usurped by a political revolution inspired by the introduction of an international currency?

Quote from: Ideal Money
...

What do you think he means by "alternative options for where to place their "savings"?

I am arguing with your argument that Bitcoin should stay at 1MB in order to prove Nash's theory/belief to be correct.

I accept that it is inevitable that an international currency will come about that supplants all central banks and their policies.

I think when Nash refers to "alternative options", he is referring to bitcoin, but bitcoin will not be the international currency.
Bitcoin will be the "alternative option" to the "international currency". That "international currency" will peg to an
"international gold" that this international body will regulate and control. Bitcoin will be your only option for free
unrestricted transaction.

I support a decentralized & unregulatable ledger first, with safe scaling over time.
Request a signed message if you are associating with anyone claiming to be me.
1511503909
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511503909

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511503909
Reply with quote  #2

1511503909
Report to moderator
Join ICO Now A blockchain platform for effective freelancing
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
sidhujag
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652


View Profile
March 05, 2017, 04:49:16 AM
 #342


They converge depending on liquidity and tf..

If you want my interpretation of ideal money by nash i could give it to you but i think its outside of the scope of this thread.. i think if you clear yourself of mindfuck you have yourself in you might be able to see truth
The bold is an admission I am right.  It's wrong to conflate value and price. And its that exact error that is making it difficult for everyone to understand the argument nash proposes.  This is why he introduction a conceptual/theoretical notion for stability called an ICPI.

This whole problem of understanding stems from the very fact that we don't have a stable unit of value.  If we did this dialogue would be easy.

I assure you.  I understand, and you do not.
Nash is about xfer utility. Anyways what im saying is that btc is closer to ideal money than anything else currently.. the rest i dont care if your definition of value differs from rest or world.

I also think nash was satoshi

★☆★Syscoin - Decentralized Marketplace and Multisig Platform
Pay with Bitcoin, ZCash and many more
For more visit Syscoin.org  ★☆★
traincarswreck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336


View Profile
March 05, 2017, 04:50:26 AM
 #343

Here is what I mean by semantical, determinism/free will, and what it means that value and price have a relationship over time...

I would agree to this:

The markets are god and can see the future.  IF the truth of the future of our reality is such that we increase the tps then the markets today have already reacted to this and these can foresee it...

but we as individuals cannot foresee the ultimate outcome.

IF the truth of the future of our reality is such that we NEVER increase the tps and we guard bitcoin's gold-like properties (ie that keep it's value stable), then the markets already know the truth.

Whether we change it or not the markets have already made their decisions based on the ultimate truth.

There is no argument that we are to pander to the markets, other than what the rational way forward is.  You cannot say "the markets expects A therefore we cannot do B"  The markets know we will do X, and they waiting for us to do X.

traincarswreck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336


View Profile
March 05, 2017, 04:52:51 AM
 #344



I am arguing with your argument that Bitcoin should stay at 1MB in order to prove Nash's theory/belief to be correct.

I accept that it is inevitable that an international currency will come about that supplants all central banks and their policies.

I think when Nash refers to "alternative options", he is referring to bitcoin, but bitcoin will not be the international currency.
Bitcoin will be the "alternative option" to the "international currency". That "international currency" will peg to an
"international gold" that this international body will regulate and control.

Ok.  I think you just said you agree with everything I parallel with Nash's argument EXCEPT that changing the tps makes bitcoin irrelevant to Nashs argument.

We can use the "nashian" sense to say this easier...

You don't believe changing the tps wreck bitcoin's good quality in the nashian sense.  You think it still fits the bill, fits his premise?

Thats the only quarrel?
traincarswreck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336


View Profile
March 05, 2017, 05:00:38 AM
 #345

Nash is about xfer utility. Anyways what im saying is that btc is closer to ideal money than anything else currently.. the rest i dont care if your definition of value differs from rest or world.

Yes, and its closeness to ideal money, or what nash calls an ICPI (which is a theoretical construct which is parallel ideal/stable money), is what makes it relevant as an inflation hedge.  As long as we guard its stability of value, then it will remain a catalyst that will induce fiat to asymptotically approach ideal money.

Quote
I also think nash was satoshi
You think because of me.  But when I originally introduces the possibility, I really was trying to convey this extended argument but in a compressed form (ie nash is satoshi).  And I hadn't yet fully read szabo's works. I don't argue anymore than Nash was Satoshi, but rather I can say that there are only 3 people in the world at that time that could so confidently assert that the price of any commodities would tend towards its cost of production. 

Now you might disagree, cause I bet you would agree with such a statement.  But what they were really implying was that bitcoin was going to usurp the monetary qualities of gold's price. 

Even today people don't understand that bitcoin is going to do that.  And the reason it will do that, is because its relatively close to ideal money.  I can't make that statement, without evoking nash's works, and neither can you.  Because he VERY CAREFULLY and methodically laid out the definition of "ideal money" so we could use it.


Quote from: Ideal Money
To be quite respectable, in a Gresham-advised sense, money needs only to be AS GOOD as other material commod-ities that might be hoarded.


AgentofCoin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092



View Profile
March 05, 2017, 05:04:06 AM
 #346



I am arguing with your argument that Bitcoin should stay at 1MB in order to prove Nash's theory/belief to be correct.

I accept that it is inevitable that an international currency will come about that supplants all central banks and their policies.

I think when Nash refers to "alternative options", he is referring to bitcoin, but bitcoin will not be the international currency.
Bitcoin will be the "alternative option" to the "international currency". That "international currency" will peg to an
"international gold" that this international body will regulate and control.

Ok.  I think you just said you agree with everything I parallel with Nash's argument EXCEPT that changing the tps makes bitcoin irrelevant to Nashs argument.

We can use the "nashian" sense to say this easier...

You don't believe changing the tps wreck bitcoin's good quality in the nashian sense.  You think it still fits the bill, fits his premise?

Thats the only quarrel?

Yes, if Bitcoin's TPS never increases, then it will never attain the "alternative option" Nash is describing.
So, either Bitcoin becomes the "alternative options", which leads to the "international gold" that pegs the
"international currency", or Bitcoin fails because it is being held back in order to facilitate the role of
"international gold" prior to the time in which this new financial order will occur.

So I disagree with you because Bitcoin is too radical for the international body to accept as their own.
When the people in this new world are subjugated and "kicked off" their system, they have Bitcoin so
that they may survive (the "alternative option").

I support a decentralized & unregulatable ledger first, with safe scaling over time.
Request a signed message if you are associating with anyone claiming to be me.
sidhujag
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652


View Profile
March 05, 2017, 05:06:41 AM
 #347

Nash is about xfer utility. Anyways what im saying is that btc is closer to ideal money than anything else currently.. the rest i dont care if your definition of value differs from rest or world.

Yes, and its closeness to ideal money, or what nash calls an ICPI (which is a theoretical construct which is parallel ideal/stable money), is what makes it relevant as an inflation hedge.  As long as we guard its stability of value, then it will remain a catalyst that will induce fiat to asymptotically approach ideal money.

Quote
I also think nash was satoshi
You think because of me.  But when I originally introduces the possibility, I really was trying to convey this extended argument but in a compressed form (ie nash is satoshi).  And I hadn't yet fully read szabo's works. I don't argue anymore than Nash was Satoshi, but rather I can say that there are only 3 people in the world at that time that could so confidently assert that the price of any commodities would tend towards its cost of production.  

Now you might disagree, cause I bet you would agree with such a statement.  But what they were really implying was that bitcoin was going to usurp the monetary qualities of gold's price.  

Even today people don't understand that bitcoin is going to do that.  And the reason it will do that, is because its relatively close to ideal money.  I can't make that statement, without evoking nash's works, and neither can you.  Because he VERY CAREFULLY and methodically laid out the definition of "ideal money" so we could use it.


Quote from: Ideal Money
To be quite respectable, in a Gresham-advised sense, money needs only to be AS GOOD as other material commod-ities that might be hoarded.



What? Your full of shit  i dont think anything because of you.. ive formed my own oppinions based on the information thats been presented to me over the past several years. Did you write this post? http://fuk.io/who-is-satoshi-nakamoto-the-truth/

Read my history for truth

★☆★Syscoin - Decentralized Marketplace and Multisig Platform
Pay with Bitcoin, ZCash and many more
For more visit Syscoin.org  ★☆★
traincarswreck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336


View Profile
March 05, 2017, 05:12:26 AM
 #348



Yes, if Bitcoin's TPS never increases, then it will never attain the "alternative option" Nash is describing.
So, either Bitcoin becomes the "alternative options", which leads to the "international gold" that pegs the
"international currency", or Bitcoin fails because it is being held back in order to facilitate the role of
"international gold" prior to the time in which it will occur.

So I disagree with you because Bitcoin is too radical for the international body to accept as their own.
When the people in this new world are subjugated and "kicked off" their system, they have Bitcoin so
that they may survive (the "alternative option").

This is your Satoshi complex.  I didn't learn about bitcoin from Satoshi, I learned about it from Nash.  He speaks about the macro economics implications and your perspective doesn't, and so your conclusion is not actually founded in science and accepted theory (hint: szabo's is!).

When the tps doesn't increase bitcoin transactions get costly.  This pushes the everyday person's coffee purchases off the network, but only because a higher value player is finding utility in the transactions.  This doesn't at all mean that average joe cannot use bitcoin as an alternative savings, it means they cannot make a lot of transactions.  They can definitely hodl like we have traditionally used gold for.

If we mess with the tps, I argue, this phenomenon wont take place.  

And the banks cannot ignore it, because if bitcoin is going up in value over time, then the banks that hold it will win and those that don't will lose, same with nations, thats why bitcoin isn't very illegal, its not economically feasible to not have it.

It's a reverse bretton woods.  No meta players wants this scenario to unfold but simultaneously no player wants to miss the bus.

And then as bitcoin becomes relevant as a major settlement system it will affect the quality of our money in the way, for example, smith describes here:

Quote
The whole paper money of every kind which can easily circulate in any country, never can exceed the value of the gold and silver, of which it supplies the place, or which (the commerce being supposed the same) would circulate there, if there was no paper money. If twenty shilling notes, for example, are the lowest paper money current in Scotland, the whole of that currency which can easily circulate there, cannot exceed the sum of gold and silver which would be necessary for transacting the annual exchanges of twenty shillings value and upwards usually transacted within that country. Should the circulating paper at any time exceed that sum, as the excess could neither be sent abroad nor be employed in the circulation of the country, it must immediately return upon the banks, to be exchanged for gold and silver. Many people would immediately perceive that they had more of this paper than was necessary for transacting their business at home; and as they could not send it abroad, they would immediately demand payment for it from the banks. When this superfluous paper was converted into gold and silver, they could easily find a use for it, by sending it abroad; but they could find none while it remained in the shape of paper. There would immediately, therefore, be a run upon the banks to the whole extent of this superfluous paper, and if they showed any difficulty or backwardness in payment, to a much greater extent; the alarm which this would occasion necessarily increasing the run



traincarswreck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336


View Profile
March 05, 2017, 05:13:44 AM
 #349


What? Your full of shit  i dont think anything because of you.. ive formed my own oppinions based on the information thats been presented to me over the past several years. Did you write this post? http://fuk.io/who-is-satoshi-nakamoto-the-truth/

Read my history for truth
The link you gave is quoting and citing me, dummy. YOUR history?
sidhujag
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652


View Profile
March 05, 2017, 05:21:16 AM
 #350


What? Your full of shit  i dont think anything because of you.. ive formed my own oppinions based on the information thats been presented to me over the past several years. Did you write this post? http://fuk.io/who-is-satoshi-nakamoto-the-truth/

Read my history for truth
The link you gave is quoting and citing me, dummy. YOUR history?
Awesome sorry.. i really appreciated your work. Well if you read my history you would see that i drew parallel assumptions based on similar facts. If that was you then its all good Smiley

★☆★Syscoin - Decentralized Marketplace and Multisig Platform
Pay with Bitcoin, ZCash and many more
For more visit Syscoin.org  ★☆★
AgentofCoin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092



View Profile
March 05, 2017, 05:29:45 AM
 #351



Yes, if Bitcoin's TPS never increases, then it will never attain the "alternative option" Nash is describing.
So, either Bitcoin becomes the "alternative options", which leads to the "international gold" that pegs the
"international currency", or Bitcoin fails because it is being held back in order to facilitate the role of
"international gold" prior to the time in which it will occur.

So I disagree with you because Bitcoin is too radical for the international body to accept as their own.
When the people in this new world are subjugated and "kicked off" their system, they have Bitcoin so
that they may survive (the "alternative option").

This is your Satoshi complex.  I didn't learn about bitcoin from Satoshi, I learned about it from Nash.  He speaks about the macro economics implications and your perspective doesn't, and so your conclusion is not actually founded in science and accepted theory (hint: szabo's is!).

When the tps doesn't increase bitcoin transactions get costly.  This pushes the everyday person's coffee purchases off the network, but only because a higher value player is finding utility in the transactions.  This doesn't at all mean that average joe cannot use bitcoin as an alternative savings, it means they cannot make a lot of transactions.  They can definitely hodl like we have traditionally used gold for.

If we mess with the tps, I argue, this phenomenon wont take place.  

And the banks cannot ignore it, because if bitcoin is going up in value over time, then the banks that hold it will win and those that don't will lose, same with nations, thats why bitcoin isn't very illegal, its not economically feasible to not have it.

It's a reverse bretton woods.  No meta players wants this scenario to unfold but simultaneously no player wants to miss the bus.

And then as bitcoin becomes relevant as a major settlement system it will affect the quality of our money in the way, for example, smith describes here:

Quote
The whole paper money of every kind which can easily circulate in any country, never can exceed the value of the gold and silver, of which it supplies the place, or which (the commerce being supposed the same) would circulate there, if there was no paper money. If twenty shilling notes, for example, are the lowest paper money current in Scotland, the whole of that currency which can easily circulate there, cannot exceed the sum of gold and silver which would be necessary for transacting the annual exchanges of twenty shillings value and upwards usually transacted within that country. Should the circulating paper at any time exceed that sum, as the excess could neither be sent abroad nor be employed in the circulation of the country, it must immediately return upon the banks, to be exchanged for gold and silver. Many people would immediately perceive that they had more of this paper than was necessary for transacting their business at home; and as they could not send it abroad, they would immediately demand payment for it from the banks. When this superfluous paper was converted into gold and silver, they could easily find a use for it, by sending it abroad; but they could find none while it remained in the shape of paper. There would immediately, therefore, be a run upon the banks to the whole extent of this superfluous paper, and if they showed any difficulty or backwardness in payment, to a much greater extent; the alarm which this would occasion necessarily increasing the run

My conclusions are based in observations and deductions of the Bitcoin system so far.
How it was created, who participated, what their philosophies and beliefs were, and what
are the projected future changes/updates.

Your conclusions only manifest if you are successful in preventing Bitcoin from increasing the TPS.
No one that I am aware of, whether in Core or BU, have stated that TPS needs to stop now.
In fact, all parties pretty much agree it will rise at some point, and that point part is the debate.

I am Satoshi based, so I am cypherpunk based. Those are my concerns.
You are Nash based, so you are monetary revolution based. Those are your concerns.

TPS whether on-chain or off-chain, if restricted will destroy Bitcoin and prevent it from becoming the
"alternative option". Your "international gold" will come into existence in 30 to 50 more years. You
should not hold Bitcoin back for 30 to 50 more years so that it can fit into Nash's theory. It may be
that you are preventing humanities only recourse of fallback in this financial world where everything
is known, monitored, data mined, exploited, and used to control the people.

You are arguing that Satoshi intended Bitcoin to be the "international gold" and there is no evidence
to support that. Nash may have influenced him, but if designed to be such, was not properly done.

I support a decentralized & unregulatable ledger first, with safe scaling over time.
Request a signed message if you are associating with anyone claiming to be me.
traincarswreck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336


View Profile
March 05, 2017, 05:32:40 AM
 #352


I am Satoshi based, so I am cypherpunk based. Those are my concerns.
You are Nash based, so you are monetary revolution based. Those are your concerns.

Satoshi is not a real person, and satoshi did not explain the macro economic implications of bitcoin.  Nash is real and nash explained the macro economic implications of bitcoin.

The quicker we realize this, the quicker we will have ideal money.

And yes I agree BOTH sides of the debate, including core, are ignoring this.  Thus they are being irresponsible.
traincarswreck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336


View Profile
March 05, 2017, 05:34:14 AM
 #353


Awesome sorry.. i really appreciated your work. Well if you read my history you would see that i drew parallel assumptions based on similar facts. If that was you then its all good Smiley
I wasn't reading ideal money when I realized all this, I was reading his paper from the 50's 'the bargaining problem'.  That's how I knew nash came up with this concept of ideal money back THEN.  That's what the movie a beautiful mind is REALLY about but the writers of the script didn't know this at the time.
AGD
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1400



View Profile
March 05, 2017, 05:36:48 AM
 #354


What? Your full of shit  i dont think anything because of you.. ive formed my own oppinions based on the information thats been presented to me over the past several years. Did you write this post? http://fuk.io/who-is-satoshi-nakamoto-the-truth/

Read my history for truth
The link you gave is quoting and citing me, dummy. YOUR history?

I lol'ed.

My ignore list here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1652334.0 +++ GPG Public key FFBD756C24B54962E6A772EA1C680D74DB714D40 +++ http://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x1C680D74DB714D40
sidhujag
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652


View Profile
March 05, 2017, 05:37:26 AM
 #355


Awesome sorry.. i really appreciated your work. Well if you read my history you would see that i drew parallel assumptions based on similar facts. If that was you then its all good Smiley
I wasn't reading ideal money when I realized all this, I was reading his paper from the 50's 'the bargaining problem'.  That's how I knew nash came up with this concept of ideal money back THEN.  That's what the movie a beautiful mind is REALLY about but the writers of the script didn't know this at the time.
Me too i watched beautiful mind and couldnt help myself but draw parallels to the work i was doing in cryptoland way after the fact.. i watched when it first came out.but got.drawn.back once i recognized the patterns

★☆★Syscoin - Decentralized Marketplace and Multisig Platform
Pay with Bitcoin, ZCash and many more
For more visit Syscoin.org  ★☆★
traincarswreck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336


View Profile
March 05, 2017, 05:43:49 AM
 #356


Me too i watched beautiful mind and couldnt help myself but draw parallels to the work i was doing in cryptoland way after the fact.. i watched when it first came out.but got.drawn.back once i recognized the patterns
The movie shows nash's wife proving to him that the letters he sent to the intelligence agencies he claimed to be communicating with were never sent or received.  But in actuality his letters WERE received and they were later shown to be profound: https://steemit.com/movie/@jokerpravis/an-interesting-scene-from-the-movie-a-beautiful-mind

Quote
In his letters, Nash anticipated the birth of complexity theory a decade later, and the birth of modern cryptography two decades later.

In them he gave a proposal for unbreakable encryption: https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@jokerpravis/a-special-conjecture-unbreakable-encryption-john-nash-s-letter-to-the-nsa

Quote from: Nash letters to the NSA
The nature of this conjecture is such that I cannot prove...but this does not destroy its significance.

He realized 60+ years ago, in his 20's, math could hold value.
jonald_fyookball
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260


Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political


View Profile
March 05, 2017, 05:45:05 AM
 #357


Awesome sorry.. i really appreciated your work. Well if you read my history you would see that i drew parallel assumptions based on similar facts. If that was you then its all good Smiley
I wasn't reading ideal money when I realized all this, I was reading his paper from the 50's 'the bargaining problem'.  That's how I knew nash came up with this concept of ideal money back THEN.  That's what the movie a beautiful mind is REALLY about but the writers of the script didn't know this at the time.
Me too i watched beautiful mind and couldnt help myself but draw parallels to the work i was doing in cryptoland way after the fact.. i watched when it first came out.but got.drawn.back once i recognized the patterns

i think OP is wackier than john nash talking to himself in the movie...  Cheesy

traincarswreck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336


View Profile
March 05, 2017, 05:47:13 AM
 #358



i think OP is wackier than john nash talking to himself in the movie...  Cheesy
everything I say is cited and traceable to its source which i have provided as well.
digaran
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630


COINPAYMENTS.NET


View Profile
March 05, 2017, 05:51:09 AM
 #359

Triple posting, check_ Nash's fan, check_ cult member, check_ illuminati, check_ selfish & self centered, check_.

- Ideal money means when you say pay me $100 then I will give back $100 and you actually do it, now our honest words of mouth has turned into a digital form, when you have 1 bitcoin the entire network after (hearing) seeing your proof says yes you have 1 bitcoin and unlike when we pass a sentence ear to ear after 50 people doing that the last person will literally tell you something completely different, so there goes your ideal money and bitcoin still standing without even changing a bit.

From ancient times a powerful tribe were attacking other territories and took their lands, life stocks, food, girls and women, and everything valuable including natural resources. exactly what any governments around the world is doing, they are just like those tribes taking everything by force and intimidation.
Now we have something of a great value without it's quality diminished and reduced like when a data file or video file does after being copied so many times, and politician or doctor or rich or any level of community you'll have to do the same work and even work harder and harder as time passes to have access to this thing we call bitcoin which has a value that is determined in a consensus network of users/miners/nodes.

Bitcoin is not anything, there is nothing like it, you can not compare it to anything whatsoever because bitcoin is unique one and only of a kind.
Nash or hash or whatever you like to be a fan of, the secret recipe is out so bad for the creator if he was drunk and uploaded it to open source community and now is too late for providing with fixes he should've thought about it before donating the code.

       ▀
   ▄▄▄   ▄▀
   ███ ▄▄▄▄  ██
       ████
    ▄  ▀▀▀▀
▄▄
      ██    ▀▀
██▄█▄▄▄████████
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▀███▀▀▀
██████████████████
████▄▀▄▀▄▀███▀▀▀▀▀
████▄▀▄▀▄▀███ ▀
████▄▀▄▀▄▀████████
▀█████████████████
]
,CoinPayments,
█████
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████
█████
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████
█████
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████
AgentofCoin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092



View Profile
March 05, 2017, 05:52:57 AM
 #360


I am Satoshi based, so I am cypherpunk based. Those are my concerns.
You are Nash based, so you are monetary revolution based. Those are your concerns.

Satoshi is not a real person, and satoshi did not explain the macro economic implications of bitcoin.  Nash is real and nash explained the macro economic implications of bitcoin.

The quicker we realize this, the quicker we will have ideal money.

And yes I agree BOTH sides of the debate, including core, are ignoring this.  Thus they are being irresponsible.

Whether a person is real or not is irrelevant.
The fact is that Satoshi did not release the whitepaper or discuss its ideas within economic forums or mailing lists.
Instead, he did so within the cypherpunk community and discussed the ideas with those members. The financial
aspects of the system came about later, for example, block times, amount of coins, halving times, etc. He did not
create those financial aspects first on Nashian theory and then decide he would solve the problems of e-currency.

Satoshi created Bitcoin as a result of how the banking system has evolved. He wanted a checks & balances.
If Satoshi was attempting to create a Nashian "international gold" for the "international currency", then he did
everything wrong. I believe Satoshi intended people to make txs directly on-chain. Currently we can not do that
without harming the special aspects of Bitcoin, so we will manifest his dream through second layer systems. When
this occurs, TPS will increase massive for off-chain and over time, respectively conservative for on-chain.

All TPS restrictions whether on or off chain, will not be allowed and we will have malicious intentional hardforks if
that occurs. It is likely that not only will those come from the BU big blockers, but also from Core small blocker, IMO.

I support a decentralized & unregulatable ledger first, with safe scaling over time.
Request a signed message if you are associating with anyone claiming to be me.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!